Marshal said... So it's been three days since the Colorado vote and activists are already using it as a springboard to push the policy elsewhere. I'm in favor of legalizing pot and other drugs, presuming we could also limit others' ability to use that legalization to further other goals. But this activism sucks. Give people time to see how it works, and then convince them.

Haven't really looked at how the states that passed this will be controlling it, distributing it, but I suspect that once they get a taste of the tax potential on pot, they'll be like a lion stumbling onto a herd of goats. Buffet time!

Pot will become the new petroleum, the new alcohol. It will become the new source for unlimited taxing- by both the state and the Feds. Once the Feds get a dose of the money to be made 'taxing' pot, this will become the Next Great Thing.

States will be lining up to line their accounts. Suddenly, every politician will be saying, "I was always for legalizing pot". This will, of course, drive up the price of pot, but no one will notice in the short run.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming articles on this 'new' cash crop. The entire world has been making money on it for decades. It's amazed me that it took the Gummint this long to wet their beaks.

Pot will become the new petroleum, the new alcohol. It will become the new source for unlimited taxing- by both the state and the Feds. Once the Feds get a dose of the money to be made 'taxing' pot, this will become the Next Great Thing.

That's why Bloomberg is so dumb. He should TAX the big sodas not BAN them!

Another question Mexico is probably asking: Why should our people be risking their lives fighting the very drug cartels the Obama administration armed and that has goods America very clearly wants to buy?

Real question: What does Mexico gain here if they decide to keep stopping the drug trade? Fighting against better armed, better funded drug cartels, while the population that they are supposedly helping -- Americans -- have voted to keep the administration that gave the drug cartels weapons -and- voted to legalize marijuana?

Note: I don't use drugs, but I understand the policy argument for legalization or at least decriminalization. I'm not sure the right path to take on it; but once states start saying it is legal, it makes it very, very hard to keep pretending it is a non-issue.

It will be interesting, once recreational marijuana use is widely legalized, how the issues of impaired driving, workplace safety, secondhand smoke, etc get dealt with. Lawyers are going to make a lot of money, forget about taxes.

We have decided that the poor in this nation won't pay taxes on their limited incomes. However, we have decided to tax the hell out their vices -- alcohol, tobacco and lotteries. Middle and upper incomes do use such things too but they smoke less and buy fewer lottery tickets. Now it appears that the new revenue stream on lower income folks will be marijuana.

I have no problems with sin taxes, but I don't like the hypocracy of those who don't want to tax the poor directly are often the strongest advocates of raising sin taxes.

"It will be interesting, once recreational marijuana use is widely legalized, how the issues of impaired driving, workplace safety, secondhand smoke, etc get dealt with. Lawyers are going to make a lot of money, forget about taxes."

Great points. Legal marijuana may enjoy a honeymoon from such regulations, but they will come.

Haven't really looked at how the states that passed this will be controlling it, distributing it

Yes, there is no plan, but.....

Last year at this time, we were selling distilled beverages from state controlled liquor stores. Costco wanted to sell liquor as well, and they sponsored an initiative to eliminate the state liquor store. The initiative passed, and I can now buy liquor at the Safeway. The rump of that organization still exists, and it has been tasked with distributing marijuana. So, I'm guessing marijuana will be distributed like distilled beverages from a state liquor store.

It will be sold as buds, baked goods, and in beverages. Regardless of form, it will all measure out to an ounce. You know....four fingers on a baggie.

Beverages? Yeah....cuz drinking the bong water is always a good idea!!

What they are really struggling with is the driving-while-intoxicated thing. There is no breath-a-lyser for weed. It's a blood test. How much weed can you consume before you are considered stoned? How do police change their field sobriety test?

Factoid: Officially, the old state liquor stores were called "Liquor and Wine". Which I always assumed was a punchline in search of a joke!

Allegedly--I say allegedly because, originally, the whole "medical marijuana" movement was 'allegedly' about making sure chronically ill patients have access to, supposedly, the one medicine that will cure them of their ills, and wasn't at all a ruse to get marijuana use normalized as the first step toward full legalization. So you can cool it with your "slipper slope" horsecrap, because we aren't pushing for full legalization! Okay? Pinky promise.--

But, anyway, allegedly trafficking won't be an issue because, here in Colorado, as was done with medical marijuana, dispensaries (or I guess gas stations now. It's legal!), the entire supply chain from growing to consumption is regulated by the state. (To get an idea of how great an idea this is: About a year ago, EVERY GROW HOUSE IN BOULDER had to be relocated because someone on the city council put a map SHOWING THEIR LOCATIONS on the city website, making them prime targets for massive heists!) That is, the state still recognizes illegal growing operations. Suppliers are still required to buy from state-sanctioned growers. And sellers are required to document their suppliers, so it's incredibly difficult to launder illicit, smuggled contraband into your normal supply chain.

That's the theory, anyway. I need not remind people that, uh, THE CITY OF BOULDER PUT EVERY GROW HOUSE IN THE CITY ONTO A MAP FOR PUBLIC VIEW. Let's trust the idea that "Regulation Works" and everything will go according to plan. Okay? Pinky promise.

I'm worried this hodgepodge of absurd legislation is turning Colorado into California. It's now legal for me to blaze up in a park, but I can't have my dog off a leash in 99% of the state. I can't be ticketed for blowing pot smoke into a four year old's face--that's on my bucket list--but I can be ticketed for "wildlife harassment" if my dog tries to smell a deer.

Which makes me wonder: what did the deer do before the Department of Interior? Were deer harassed repeatedly but were a disenfranchised group and couldn't do anything about it? Then suddenly the Federal Government appears to make wildlife harassment legal?

Sounds like we have life-long Democrats there. Can't wait for liberals to push inter-species suffrage!

I'm a conservative who doesn't use drugs (unless you count caffeine, all hail the mighty coffee bean!) but did vote for Amendment 64, I knew full well that it wouldn't really legalize pot. The Feds have made it quite clear that they intend to fully enforce federal laws against it. So all the talk of tax revenue is really just make believe. No one is going to openly invest in a farm or store dealing with this product if they think they might get raided by Feds at any time.

My purpose in voting for it was to curtail local enforcement of such laws. The police really do have better things to do with their time than hassle some 19 year old with a dime bag. The now fuzzy status of such local laws makes enforcement of them problematic at best, which means the police probably won't bother in most situations. Since I don't think smoking pot is any more harmful (in fact, a case an be made that it is less so) than alcohol, I don't see it as the state's business to deny its use to consenting adults.

My purpose in voting for it was to curtail local enforcement of such laws.

My purpose in voting against it was that of the projected $25 billion in raised revenue, the first $40 billion would go to building new schools. Denver has an urban school system with urban problems, and they initiate policies to bring those urban policies to non-urban school districts throughout the state. The last thing I want to do with a dysfunctional school system is give it more money to waste.

If they had said the revenue would go to roads or parks, I would have voted for it. But it passed, so woohoo.

Actually it's just the first 40 million that go towards education. After that, it's a slush fund for whatever the legislator wants to waste it on. In any case, I don't see revenue coming from this, as any large scale trade would be put down by the DEA.

how the issues of impaired driving, workplace safety, secondhand smoke, etc get dealt with

Kind of a silly question, really. The answer is: the same way they get dealt with now.

Alcohol and tobacco are legal. I've yet to work in a place that will let me smoke a cigar and sip a martini in the workplace. Hell, they don't even do celebratory champagne -- insurance concerns.

If someone shows up to work drunk or high, you send him home and ding his record. If it keeps happening he gets shitcanned. Doesn't matter if the substance he's abusing is legal or illegal -- there are all manner of legal activities you aren't allowed to do at work.

Revenant said... If someone shows up to work drunk or high, you send him home and ding his record. If it keeps happening he gets shitcanned. Doesn't matter if the substance he's abusing is legal or illegal -- there are all manner of legal activities you aren't allowed to do at work.

It will prevent businesses from prohibiting drug use away from the office.

In the sense that the police will charge you with a misdemeanor or felony instead of writing you a ticket, yes.

People who think "but, but it is LEGAL now" should try telling a cop they poured vodka down a four-year-old's throat and see what happens. It turns out that "it is legal for adults" doesn't mean "it is legal to do to kids". Weird, eh?

It will prevent businesses from prohibiting drug use away from the office.

If the employee's drug use affects their work, employers can act on it. Show up to work hung over all the time and you'll eventually get fired, even if all your drinking and intoxication happened on your own time.

Now, will employers be able to fire or discipline employees who use drugs outside of work in a manner that doesn't affect their job performance? I'm torn between "I don't know" and "who gives a rat's ass". Sure, as a libertarian I'm bothered that employers don't have complete freedom to choose whom they will employ -- but of all millions of bullshit government rules out there, "I can't fire people for doing things on their own time that don't hurt my business at all" ranks pretty low on the list. :)

I'm torn between "I don't know" and "who gives a rat's ass". Sure, as a libertarian I'm bothered that employers don't have complete freedom to choose whom they will employ -- but of all millions of bullshit government rules out there, "I can't fire people for doing things on their own time that don't hurt my business at all" ranks pretty low on the list.

I think your analysis is quite manichean. It's perfectly reasonable to believe drug use degrades performance, and also to understand that current employment law does not allow you to take all actions you think in your businesses best interest, or applies significant and unwarranted additional costs to do so.

For example drug use will immediately come under ADA rules as soon as it is fully legalized. While you'll still be able to restrict use or influence, performance degredation is hard to prove and the onus is on the employer.

I agree it's not the biggest issue around, but I think it's something that should change and prevents people from considering legalization in the first place.

Yes, million. I spend too much time reading about the federal budget. I forgot million-with-an-m existed anymore!

But what pissed me off was the projected revenues are $25 Mmmmillion, and revenue doesn't go into the 'slush fund' until it exceeds $40 mmmmillion. Projected revenues basically have to double before anything beyond education benefits.

Kind of a silly question, really. The answer is: the same way they get dealt with now

It really wasn't a question but my point is that it won't be the same as now. If its going to be legal, how do you define when its crossed over into a level that's unacceptable for safety reasons etc. Easy now, its illegal, shows up on a urine test, you're out. Thus you create a whole new area for litigation/legislation, just like you have with DWI, etc. How do define impairment? What's the smoking pot age? Are you actually going to reduce the amount of law enforcement attention, once Johnny legally stoned, crashes into some school kids? Don't make it simple, just so you can be a smartass. Its not and it won't be.

Evaluating employees based on their performance is not only legal, but standard business practice. If drug use degrades their performance... their performance will degrade. And you can deal with them like you deal with any other under-performing employee.

For example drug use will immediately come under ADA rules as soon as it is fully legalized.

Paranoid nonsense. Abusers of legal intoxicants aren't protected from termination by the ADA. The notion that you can fire someone for being drunk all the time but not for being stoned all the time has no rational basis in law.

Impairment is defined separately from the drug content of your bloodstream. That's why it is possible to convict people of driving while impaired even if you never took a blood test. Here in California there are actually separate charges for driving under the influence and driving with intoxicants in your bloodstream, for example.

What's the smoking pot age?

I believe the Colorado measure set it at 21.

Are you actually going to reduce the amount of law enforcement attention, once Johnny legally stoned, crashes into some school kids?

Oddly enough, crashing into a busload of students is illegal whether you're intoxicated or not, and doing so while intoxicated is illegal regardless of the legality of the intoxicant used.

As for the notion that legalization will lead to a surge in stoned drivers -- that could, perhaps, have been a rational concern a half-century ago. But we've decades of accident statistics now that show there is no measurable correlation between traffic accidents either marijuana usage or ease of access to marijuana. Marijuana usage in California has been de facto legal for over a decade -- the per capita incidence of cannabis-related traffic accidents has actually *dropped*.

Don't make it simple, just so you can be a smartass.

Look, I promise to stop being a smartass if the rest of you will promise not to make dumbass remarks. It is painfully obvious you haven't actually put any thought into the questions you're asking.

Reverant: you obviously are well able to explain these details but I'm just pointing out that the system never works quickly and intelligently, especially when you get lawyers and legislators involved. Yeah I'm asking dumbass questions because the world is filled with dumbass issues. My profession is dealing with environmental regulations, I spend a lot of time explaining dumbass things to people.